View Full Version : Do Ethernet patch cables make a difference?
Clive197
13-11-2015, 14:10
Last week I was surfing e-bay and came across an auction for a 0.75m Chord C-Stream Ethernet cable and decided to take a punt and put in a low but reasonable bid. We'll shiver me timbers I won. It arrived 2days later so I plumbed it in between a 4 way switch and my Cyrus StreamX2.
I've always had difficulties hearing differences on digital cable but it definitely improved smoothness and brought out a more musical insight which has left me both gobsmacked and perplexed. How does a short length of CAT7 cable on the end of my home network consisting of approx 20m of CAT6, 2 network switches make any bloody difference, but IT DOES!!!
They make a difference to your wallet. If it makes such a difference to be "gobsmacked" and has "definitely" improved the sound, get someone to switch between the cables without you seeing which one's plugged in.
Here's a good read: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html
Noise, noise, noise.
Network cables are poorly shielded. Cat 5 and 6 rely on being twists so as to avoid being adversely by external electrical noise, and that's not a great solution. They are particularly susceptible to being badly affected by mains leads running next to them, or the proximity of electrically noisy apparatus such as strip lights. Cat 7 is better because the individual cables are shielded.
I don't think you understand how Ethernet works Reggie.
Problem with shielded cat. Is that the equipment its attached to isnt earthed so instead of shielding you can just produce a aerial and make things worse(patch cables wise)
Clive197
13-11-2015, 16:32
Grant, I'm not sure I agree with you there. In my case the equipment is all earthed. The TT/arm/cartridge is earthed to the phono which in turn is earthed via the interconnect to the pre which again is earthed onwards. It only need 1 item to be earthed to the mains for the whole kit and capoodle to be earthed.
I don't think you understand how Ethernet works Reggie.
1+
Audio Advent
13-11-2015, 17:18
I don't think you understand how Ethernet works Reggie.
That depends on how you interpret his post.
That noise might not effect the ethernet data but it might well effect the components within the equipment if not handled correctly.
That is not about how ethernet works as a data handling bus but the general electrical aspects of RJ47 connected equipment.
Audio Advent
13-11-2015, 17:23
They make a difference to your wallet. If it makes such a difference to be "gobsmacked" and has "definitely" improved the sound, get someone to switch between the cables without you seeing which one's plugged in.
Here's a good read: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html
Well, a boring read to be honest, but the guy goes to proove a particular point about data integrity with fancy versions of CAT 6 cable. And doesn't say anything about CAT 7 which is where Clive heard a difference.
So is kind of irrelevent to this thread.
And if £26 versus £5 makes a massive difference to your wallet and therefore causes confirmation bias due to £21 then perhaps this is the wrong hobby (unless of course part of the hobby is doing things for as cheap as possible as can be worthwhile in its own right).
Worth noting that the Chord-C ethernet cables are also directional so best check you have the cable the right way around.
You should notice straightaway though .... your music will be playing backwards :lol:
And if £26 versus £5 makes a massive difference to your wallet and therefore causes confirmation bias due to £21 then perhaps this is the wrong hobby (unless of course part of the hobby is doing things for as cheap as possible as can be worthwhile in its own right).
Why stop at £26 when you can pay nearly 7 grand:
http://www.futureshop.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=7211#.VkYkT9Y8GV4
Surely the audio benefits will be through the roof :lol:
sq225917
13-11-2015, 18:51
If Chord's cables are genuinely directional then they can't work for ethernet which is a bidirectional protocol- simples.
Show me some tests for bit loss and call backs between the different specs and I'll become a believer.
Audio Advent
13-11-2015, 22:40
How about differences in noise introduced into the system, RFI etc (either by bad design or not - practical issues of this specific system are relevent, not generalised theory here) between different earthing and shielding arrangements of the CAT types?
Ignoring one aspect of possibility to say something is impossible is unscientific. If all aspects one can think of are tested and likely not to cause sonic differences based on results then we can begin to assume there are no sonic differences and it's all placebo.
First step here though would be simply to try a normal £2+p&p CAT7 cable rather than this possible foo Chord effort.
Good grief haven't we done this to death in the other threads recently. :doh:
orbscure
13-11-2015, 22:56
Good grief haven't we done this to death in the other threads recently. :doh:
Round and around in ever decreasing circles Neal ;)
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?41337
It is why sites exist. so folk can state their experiences ... like life, everyone has different ones. Dont like, dont read.
Eh? It's the same topic!!!!!!!
Spectral Morn
14-11-2015, 08:08
The op, has heard a difference, that is good enough for me. To those who where not there, didn't hear a difference you are awful sure in your ridicule.
Spectral Morn
14-11-2015, 08:09
It is why sites exist. so folk can state their experiences ... like life, everyone has different ones. Dont like, dont read.
Indeed + 1
I don't think you understand how Ethernet works Reggie.
I'm afraid I do. I've fixed many networks where poor cabling caused all sort of subtle problems on computer networks. I soon realised that the quality of the cabling made a huge impact on the performance of the network, and is why I always worked with an excellent professional cabler whenever I could.
The occasion that brought it home to me was when I was called in to troubleshoot a network where we'd installed a set of Intel 100Mb/s switches to replace a set of 10Mb/s hubs. Since they'd gone in the company had been getting all sorts of problems. Inspecting the cabling, it soon became apparent that that was the problem. The customer had installed it themselves and had used connectors to extend lengths of cable. That was OK for 10Mb/s connections, but it couldn't handle the 100Mb/s traffic and too many packets were being dropped.
Network protocols like TCP do a lot to try and overcome the problems of dropped packets, but if you have poor cabling - or it passes a strong electrical noise source, then the amount of packets dropped get too much and you start getting often very subtle network faults.
Another cause of problems are the connection protocol handshakes that go on between switches and network cards. At the start of a connection, the hardware devices will negotiate the speed they will connect at. They start at the fastest speed they work at and at full duplex (both directions simultaneously) and work down to slowest half duplex (both directions, but one direction at a time), until they get the best connection that both sides can support. If you have poor network cabling, these handshakes become very difficult and the connections will drop out. The fix being to stop the auto-negotiation and set the connection speeds manually.
I expect that the effect of good network cabling is very environment dependant. If you've kept your network cable away from your mains cables, and don't have any devices nearby spilling out a lot of electrical noise, and your cables aren't too tightly twisted and of decent quality (for example, no bare wire visible going into the connectors), you'll get very little benefit from well shielded cables. On the other hand, if the cables run through the mess of cables that inhabit the back of many home hi-fi systems, and run near common household appliances, then you may well get a benefit from having better cables.
It's going to be like mains cables. If you've got a clean mains, mains conditioners will have little effect. The same applies to ethernet cables.
Rob Nichols CCNA, CCDA, Intel Certified Integration Specialist, Network+
funny video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4
The occasion that brought it home to me was when I was called in to troubleshoot a network where we'd installed a set of Intel 100Mb/s switches to replace a set of 10Mb/s hubs. Since they'd gone in the company had been getting all sorts of problems. Inspecting the cabling, it soon became apparent that that was the problem. The customer had installed it themselves and had used connectors to extend lengths of cable. That was OK for 10Mb/s connections, but it couldn't handle the 100Mb/s traffic and too many packets were being dropped.
I think you have described the problem here. obviously you cannot use 10Mb/s cables in a 100 or 1000Mb/s network .. But in my experience, if the network is robust an stable, there will be no problems transporting the very low audio bandwidth data EVEN if the whole network is 10Mb/s.
But why does no one ever speak about the router ?
The router / hub is just as important and in most cases the router used is a heap of crap, i.e. a cheap crappy device, badly configured. If the cables are culprits for bad networks it is because badly crimped or some other way damaged.. Cables are imho the last thing to check. And if your are a pro you have a Ethernet cable tester.
How someone can pay big buck for an Ethernet cable and use a sub 100 buck router beats me.
sorry, did a bit of editing.
Audio Advent
14-11-2015, 16:36
I'm afraid I do. I've fixed many networks where poor cabling caused all sort of subtle problems on computer networks. I soon realised that the quality of the cabling made a huge impact on the performance of the network, and is why I always worked with an excellent professional cabler whenever I could.
The occasion that brought it home to me was when I was called in to troubleshoot a network where we'd installed a set of Intel 100Mb/s switches to replace a set of 10Mb/s hubs. Since they'd gone in the company had been getting all sorts of problems. Inspecting the cabling, it soon became apparent that that was the problem. The customer had installed it themselves and had used connectors to extend lengths of cable. That was OK for 10Mb/s connections, but it couldn't handle the 100Mb/s traffic and too many packets were being dropped.
Network protocols like TCP do a lot to try and overcome the problems of dropped packets, but if you have poor cabling - or it passes a strong electrical noise source, then the amount of packets dropped get too much and you start getting often very subtle network faults.
Another cause of problems are the connection protocol handshakes that go on between switches and network cards. At the start of a connection, the hardware devices will negotiate the speed they will connect at. They start at the fastest speed they work at and at full duplex (both directions simultaneously) and work down to slowest half duplex (both directions, but one direction at a time), until they get the best connection that both sides can support. If you have poor network cabling, these handshakes become very difficult and the connections will drop out. The fix being to stop the auto-negotiation and set the connection speeds manually.
I expect that the effect of good network cabling is very environment dependant. If you've kept your network cable away from your mains cables, and don't have any devices nearby spilling out a lot of electrical noise, and your cables aren't too tightly twisted and of decent quality (for example, no bare wire visible going into the connectors), you'll get very little benefit from well shielded cables. On the other hand, if the cables run through the mess of cables that inhabit the back of many home hi-fi systems, and run near common household appliances, then you may well get a benefit from having better cables.
It's going to be like mains cables. If you've got a clean mains, mains conditioners will have little effect. The same applies to ethernet cables.
Rob Nichols CCNA, CCDA, Intel Certified Integration Specialist, Network+
EXcellent post!!
I love it when armchair experts make statements that someone is ignorant ... and then that "ignorant" person turns out to be a real life expert and the reality of the accusation is revealed. You learn after a while which people tend to be opinionated and which have real knowledge (just for the record, I'm unlikely to be the latter... ).
Luckily, I don't have an arm chair :lol:
cloth-ears
15-11-2015, 20:06
funny video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4
That is so funny, and true. Unfortunately whenever I try to inject a little common sense into a conversation I get vilified. For reasons beyond me some people either don’t like or are afraid of the truth.
I know many people who can tell the difference between cables and the like when they are looking at them. Somehow at a quantum level they can hear through their eyes yet amazingly this super human ability deserts them when blindfolded.
I have been involved in many lab and clinical tests over the last 40 years or so. I fully understand the reliability of blind or AB testing. Any claim made should be up for testing in this manner. If a product or pill really works it will stand up to such scrutiny.
Well done Rupert
I'd agree there is an element of that. A simple unsighted A B test would suffice to identify differences, certainly thats my experience. What Reggie was highlighting are fundamental issues at Layer 1 of the network I believe...as the operation of the network relies on the integrity of the physical layer if there are fundamental implementation issues here then the rest of the network fails to function as it should. However, I don't see such fundamental issues being present with peoples reports of improved sound quality, their home networks are basic single or dual hops running 10/100Mb I don't believe we are in the realms of dropped packets certainly not to the extent suggested as this would more likely cause buffer under runs and stuttering music rather than quality improvements.
It is curious for sure though and maybe connected ground planes are the cause...mine are separated and I haven't noticed any improvement going to Cat6a or 7...maybe my Cat5e cables are correctly constructed (I made them myself) where cheap off the shelf patch cables may not work...I have a couple here that came 'free' with some low end TP-Link products that cause all sorts of weird & wonderful connection issues!
With Ethernet, if there is something 'wrong' with the connection i.e. improper wiring, router issues, or other faults, you will notice it because stuff will start acting 'funny'. This is because of dropped packets etc. & other reasons as already discussed. In this case Ethernet cables could make a difference because if they are not working properly.
Where I think people come at Ethernet cables from the wrong angle is thinking that they behave like audio cables, because we are strictly speaking about data transmission with Ethernet, there is pure data, which hasn't been clocked. It either makes it or it doesn't. Once clocking that data out to a DAC, using digital filtering, resampling etc. then yes variances start to exist, but we aren't that far down the audio chain yet. If we can send gigabytes of perfect data around a work network with zero corruption issues, why are our delicate audio files going to get influenced by Ethernet cable changes?
With a FLAC file for example we send it down an Ethernet cable and it needs 1411kbps bandwidth to make it down. Cat 5e can support up to 100MHz bandwidth. Where I am getting lost is how a properly functioning Cat 5e, Cat 6, Cat 7 etc. is going to change the data & make an audible difference. If the 'better shielding' is stopping noise from jumping out of cables & somehow coupling into HiFi components then am going to have to consult the fairies on how this works, because it'd be measurable.
brian2957
18-11-2015, 19:51
Luckily, I don't have an arm chair :lol:
Luckily I do have an armchair and luckily I don't have a clue what I'm doing . Luckily I have a pair of ears with which to assess the the changes different CAT cables make to the SQ of my system :D
Clive197
19-11-2015, 10:10
To add to this discussion, When I attended the Windsor HiFi Show, I found myself in the Chord Co room (actually it was more a hallway) and started a conversation with Nigel Finn who is Chords technical director. He enthused about how wonderful their Ethernet cables are and how as you go up the range they sound better. Which he would I suppose, but he also went on to say that Ethernet cables are also directional and sound better in the correct orientation.Make of that what you will!
cloth-ears
19-11-2015, 10:55
To add to this discussion, When I attended the Windsor HiFi Show, I found myself in the Chord Co room (actually it was more a hallway) and started a conversation with Nigel Finn who is Chords technical director. He enthused about how wonderful their Ethernet cables are and how as you go up the range they sound better. Which he would I suppose, but he also went on to say that Ethernet cables are also directional and sound better in the correct orientation.Make of that what you will!
That would imply that the cables have somehow acquired the properties of a semiconductor. I’d love to see the science behind that
That would imply that the cables have somehow acquired the properties of a semiconductor. I’d love to see the science behind that
There is no science behind it, it's just marketing bollocks. Chord has already gotten into trouble for it:
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/11/The-Chord-Company-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_274211.aspx
Chord themselves admit there is nothing 'objective' about their claims, and that they are based on subjective ones.
I admit to being a natural objectivist but if I hear someting that has no good reason then great; i then fall into the other camp quite happily. Science is science and my ears and brain are something else. Im quite cool with that...I wonder why others aren't!
I admit to being a natural objectionist but if I hear someting that has no good reason then great; i then fall into the other camp quite happily. Science is svience and my ears and brain are something else. Im quite cool with that...I wonder why others aren't!
I get where you're coming from Grant, I am a 'cable believer' when it comes to some things, like speaker cable, tonearm cable, RCA interconnects etc even though there is practically no, if any, scientific 'evidence' around & it's easy to get shot down over these on other forums.
Sometimes people trust their ears too much to the point that everything, absolutely everything, seems to make a difference...
wee tee cee
19-11-2015, 14:22
Had a chat with Brian today and have ordered a 4m cat6 cable to try between my router and lap top. Dont know what if any difference it will make to Spotify but for £6 its worth a go.
Will get my fire retardant coat on before I post my findings!!!!
brian2957
19-11-2015, 14:40
Hah ! I knew you couldn't resist mate:lol:
I'll give you a loan of this http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Gothic-Knights-Full-Suit-of-Wearable-Armour-Medieval-14-Century-Replica-Armoury-/121810718338?hash=item1c5c7c0e82:g:X5cAAOSwHnFVyGp Z
I get where you're coming from Grant, I am a 'cable believer' when it comes to some things, like speaker cable, tonearm cable, RCA interconnects etc even though there is practically no, if any, scientific 'evidence' around & it's easy to get shot down over these on other forums.
Sometimes people trust their ears too much to the point that everything, absolutely everything, seems to make a difference...
http://i0.wp.com/theverybesttop10.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the-world_s-top-10-best-pictures-of-angry-easter-cats-3.jpeg?resize=584%2C778
I get where you're coming from Grant, I am a 'cable believer' when it comes to some things, like speaker cable, tonearm cable, RCA interconnects etc even though there is practically no, if any, scientific 'evidence' around & it's easy to get shot down over these on other forums.
Sometimes people trust their ears too much to the point that everything, absolutely everything, seems to make a difference...
I dont usually here much difference in these things but on occasion i do. Then i just go with it and if others dont like it it their loss
Luckily I do have an armchair and luckily I don't have a clue what I'm doing . Luckily I have a pair of ears with which to assess the the changes different CAT cables make to the SQ of my system :D
I thought that was quite funny. ;)
brian2957
19-11-2015, 17:08
Hah ! Funny but true Rupert :D
wee tee cee
20-11-2015, 01:31
Appreciate the offer Brian but that suits looks as if it would heat up a bit and would need loads of breaking in. Plus the helmet would shield my ears and could give the sound a metallic colouring.
sq225917
20-11-2015, 07:45
I used to work for silicon design house in Cambridge, we designed and sold tcp\ip connected network rendering solutions so I'm used to plugging in big boxes on massive networks at all sorts of big companies, large architects, car manufacturers, fmcg all sorts of businesses. Now there was plenty of times when a networks performance was so slow that our £50,000 network box was slowed down by having to make endless callbacks, I knew this because the transmission logs were visible.
It was always because the combined network was out of spec, not because patch cable between switch and our box wasn't audiophile grade.
I guess what I'm getting at is that an overpriced piece of shit Ethernet cable isn't the correct fix for a badly designed network. I've pulled out loads of bad cables in my time, all of them were replaced with identical cheap undamaged cables.
To add to this discussion, When I attended the Windsor HiFi Show, I found myself in the Chord Co room (actually it was more a hallway) and started a conversation with Nigel Finn who is Chords technical director. He enthused about how wonderful their Ethernet cables are and how as you go up the range they sound better. Which he would I suppose, but he also went on to say that Ethernet cables are also directional and sound better in the correct orientation.Make of that what you will!
Oh really, more like technical marketing BS director, Ethernet is bi-directional by nature shame he doesn't realise that or the audiophiles that fall for this BS.
Clive197
21-11-2015, 11:51
Oh really, more like technical marketing BS director, Ethernet is bi-directional by nature shame he doesn't realise that or the audiophiles that fall for this BS.
Playing devils advocate here. Nigel was talking about AUDIO only, which in terms of this discussion is one way only, source to streamer. I think all would agree that an Ethernet patch cable is purely a two way data carrier which if undamaged will just work no matter how it's made. AUDIO however is easily affected by outside influences and is really what this thread is about. IMO, screening and plug quality/build could possibly account for SQ and I think that all the talk about bits, packets and data is irrelevant to the point I was trying to raise, which was about AUDIO only.
brian2957
21-11-2015, 12:22
Playing devils advocate here. Nigel was talking about AUDIO only, which in terms of this discussion is one way only, source to streamer. I think all would agree that an Ethernet patch cable is purely a two way data carrier which if undamaged will just work no matter how it's made. AUDIO however is easily affected by outside influences and is really what this thread is about. IMO, screening and plug quality/build could possibly account for SQ and I think that all the talk about bits, packets and data is irrelevant to the point I was trying to raise, which was about AUDIO only.
I couldn't possibly have put that better myself Clive . Well said sir :D
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 12:37
Ethernet cables do not carry an audio signal. They carry a binary digital signal which is not subject outside influence in the way that some audio cables are. If the cable is intact then the signal will pass through it. It’s a physical impossibility for different Ethernet cables to alter the audio quality in any way. Anybody who says it does should write a paper on in and submit it to the royal instruction under the heading “I have just broken the laws of physics” :lol:
Playing devils advocate here. Nigel was talking about AUDIO only, which in terms of this discussion is one way only, source to streamer. I think all would agree that an Ethernet patch cable is purely a two way data carrier which if undamaged will just work no matter how it's made. AUDIO however is easily affected by outside influences and is really what this thread is about. IMO, screening and plug quality/build could possibly account for SQ and I think that all the talk about bits, packets and data is irrelevant to the point I was trying to raise, which was about AUDIO only.
But that is the point, 2 plus 2 does not equal 5. He is making a correlation between Audio 'quality' and the directionality of a network cable where one cannot exist. If the cable exhibits different behaviour at the network level when reversed then something is wrong, very wrong. Plug quality, silver wiring etc do not improve sound quality in an Ethernet cable, folks need to stop thinking about Ethernet cables using analogue beliefs.
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 12:41
Ethernet cables do not carry an audio signal. They carry a binary digital signal which is not subject outside influence in the way that some audio cables are. If the cable is intact then the signal will pass through it. It’s a physical impossibility for different Ethernet cables to alter the audio quality in any way. Anybody who says it does should write a paper on in and submit it to the royal instruction under the heading “I have just broken the laws of physics” :lol:
Does the same apply for instance, to a digital RCA interconnect used between a CD player and a DAC?
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 12:52
Does the same apply for instance, to a digital RCA interconnect used between a CD player and a DAC?
YES, digital is digital and audio is audio. The digital out on a CD player does not contain any audio information. It could just as easily be carrying porn pictures.
YES, digital is digital and audio is audio. The digital out on a CD player does not contain any audio information. It could just as easily be carrying porn pictures.
That may not be strictly true. SPDIF is a real time biphase encoded PCM audio stream from which the receiver has to extract clock information. Reliable transmission relies on impedance matching and low jitter. If you take a high level look at the data stream it looks a lot like an FM radio transmission running at 6.8Mhz or so or in other words a high frequency analogue signal....however, yes, correct impedance and length considerations aside fancy materials and gold plated connectors should have no effect except in the value for money stakes for the purchaser....
YES, digital is digital and audio is audio. The digital out on a CD player does not contain any audio information. It could just as easily be carrying porn pictures.
The key difference being that your porn picture is a still - the information only needs to be conveyed once and there is time for error correction in the process before and during display. Audio is governed by a strict time-based continuum so even minor interruptions to the data flow have the potential to impact on the quality of the reconstructed analogue signal that results ... even if barely perceptible (unless serious, such as dropouts). Where the data flow is less than perfect the most noticeable area where this would be heard will be in the mid and higher frequencies (because we are more sensitive to these) and may account for the coarseness or 'grain' that many complain about when referring to digital playback.
This is a difference I have noticed when upgrading from a cheap and flimsy 'freebie' USB data cable to a more substantial and better produced type aimed at time-based AV application. That said, I would think this is a threshold that is quickly reached (i.e. the difference between poor quality and barely adequate to very substantial and fit for purpose)
Clive197
21-11-2015, 13:59
Ethernet cables do not carry an audio signal. They carry a binary digital signal which is not subject outside influence in the way that some audio cables are. If the cable is intact then the signal will pass through it. It’s a physical impossibility for different Ethernet cables to alter the audio quality in any way. Anybody who says it does should write a paper on in and submit it to the royal instruction under the heading “I have just broken the laws of physics” :lol:
Mains Cables do not and cannot carry audio signals but a substantial amount of people say they can hear differences, so to extrapolate on that, why do you doubt that people can hear differences on Ethernet cables?
Stratmangler
21-11-2015, 14:15
Mains Cables do not and cannot carry audio signals but a substantial amount of people say they can hear differences, so to extrapolate on that, why do you doubt that people can hear differences on Ethernet cables?
Here we go round again and again.
Have you read through this thread? http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?41337-What-is-the-difference-between-Cat-6-and-Cat-7-Ethernet-cable
On the issue of mains cables you have to bear in mind that the sound you get from your audio system is the mains modulated by the music signal and amplified.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 14:43
The key difference being that your porn picture is a still - the information only needs to be conveyed once and there is time for error correction in the process before and during display. Audio is governed by a strict time-based continuum so even minor interruptions to the data flow have the potential to impact on the quality of the reconstructed analogue signal that results ... even if barely perceptible (unless serious, such as dropouts). Where the data flow is less than perfect the most noticeable area where this would be heard will be in the mid and higher frequencies (because we are more sensitive to these) and may account for the coarseness or 'grain' that many complain about when referring to digital playback.
This is a difference I have noticed when upgrading from a cheap and flimsy 'freebie' USB data cable to a more substantial and better produced type aimed at time-based AV application. That said, I would think this is a threshold that is quickly reached (i.e. the difference between poor quality and barely adequate to very substantial and fit for purpose)
An audio signal is classed as a signal one can hear, hence “Audio”. 6.8 MHz is not audio. Dress it up any way you like, it’s a digital signal. As far as jitter goes, have you ever checked the values between a £2 cable and £2000 cable? You should, the results would surprise you
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 14:57
Mains Cables do not and cannot carry audio signals but a substantial amount of people say they can hear differences, so to extrapolate on that, why do you doubt that people can hear differences on Ethernet cables?
A substantial amount of people believe in ghosts and UFO’s, does that prove that they are real?
Have you ever seen anybody tell the difference between kettle leads in a blind test? Humans are very poor at measuring, we are too subjective. This is our abstract nature, we can’t help it. We are emotional beings. If you have just blown a large wad of hard earned cash on a kettle lead you’ll convince yourself that it was worth it. The sound that comes out of your speakers won’t be any different but your interpretation of that sound will be adjusted in order to match your expectations.
An audio signal is classed as a signal one can hear, hence “Audio”.
Why are you telling me this?
I'm well aware of that and it was fully acknowledged in the post you were responding to - how does that relate in any way to what I wrote?
If you wish to add something perhaps you could set out the key electrical characteristics of a digital data stream ... and no, not simply "it's zeroes and ones innit" :)
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 15:08
YES, digital is digital and audio is audio. The digital out on a CD player does not contain any audio information. It could just as easily be carrying porn pictures.
Then why do 'digital' interconnects vary so much in the way they make the system sound?
Oops my bad, 5.6Mhz
44100x32x2x2
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 15:22
Then why do 'digital' interconnects vary so much in the way they make the system sound?
Simple, they don’t. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there getting rich by exploiting people with little or no knowledge on the subject. A bit like a woman taking a car to a garage for repairs.
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 15:25
Simple, they don’t. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there getting rich by exploiting people with little or no knowledge on the subject. A bit like a woman taking a car to a garage for repairs.
Yes they do. I have several and each has a different effect on the sound.
Could say that about religion too. If people believe then why worry is what i say.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 15:36
Yes they do. I have several and each has a different effect on the sound.
I can’t stop you believing that. As a scientist I have to be objective. If two things are different then it will be shown by measurement and not subjective means.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 15:41
Could say that about religion too. If people believe then why worry is what i say.
I would say that a substantial amount of the world’s population believe in one god or another. Each religion claims that their god is the real one. They can’t all be right. I guess it’s the same with Hi-Fi
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 15:49
I can’t stop you believing that. As a scientist I have to be objective. If two things are different then it will be shown by measurement and not subjective means.
It's not about what I "believe". The differences between my digital cables are clearly and demonstrably audible. Not sure about the last part of your observations. Are you saying that I can't hear a difference unless it's a measurable one?
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 15:51
It's not about what I "believe". The differences between my digital cables are clearly and demonstrably audible. Not sure about the last part of your observations. Are you saying that I can't hear a difference unless it's a measurable one?
Are you saying that you can hear things that cannot be measured?
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 15:57
Are you saying that you can hear things that cannot be measured?
Are you saying there are no differences to be measured? Despite the audible differences clearly heard from the effects of the cables in question.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 16:01
Are you saying there are no differences to be measured? Despite the audible differences clearly heard from the effects of the cables in question.
If a cable is working, not faulty. Then the digital signal passed through it will measure the same between cheep and expensive ones.
To measure something you first have to know what your trying to measure and with what and at what level. This is where the objective scientific method can fall short. Maybe one day science will catch up with nature but it aint there yet.
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 16:07
If a cable is working, not faulty. Then the digital signal passed through it will measure the same between cheep and expensive ones.
Regardless of how the cables measure, they have clearly audible differing effects on the sound.
If a cable is working, not faulty. Then the digital signal passed through it will measure the same between cheep and expensive ones.
Indeed, but sadly there's a bit more to it than that, which rather blinkered (rigid) 'black and white thinking' [not how a REAL scientist's mind works] will never uncover ;)
Bob, if you don't buy into the concept of 'There's a lot we can genuinely hear in audio, which we can't currently measure', or to put it another way: 'Not everything we can genuinely hear can currently be proven', then debates like this will forever go round in circles.
On AoS, ultimately, (once satisfying our personal judgement criteria, some of which may be objective or measurement-based), we will always trust our senses.
Marco.
If a cable is working, not faulty. Then the digital signal passed through it will measure the same between cheep and expensive ones.
All depends on what you mean by 'faulty'...
What would you measure to define 'faulty' and how would you measure it?
Goes back to the earlier question I put to you (and you ignored) - how do YOU define the electrical characteristics of a digital signal.
More importantly, what are it's weaknesses and susceptibilities?
Incidentally this is not a 'cheap versus expensive' argument but more the differences in design and production that may affect function and fitness for purpose.
This is required reading for anyone who subscribes to the "it all just zeroes and ones innit" school of thought...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm
Shows how such a simple thing as the length of a piece of 'digital' cable might have a negative impact on the decoding process and resultant audio experience.
I think folks are getting sucked into the belief there are digital and analogue signals, the reality is all signals are in fact analogue in nature. What we call 'digital' are in fact analogue signals with very fast rise and fall times. The difference between network traffic and SPDIF is one is a real time stream where the timing or clock information has to be extracted by the receiving device. There's no chance of retransmission and no error recovery beyond simple parity so the sampling of the incoming stream has to be done on the fly. Impedance mismatching and jitter may well upset the sampling point leading to errors. SPDIF was broken from the outset the use of RCA connectors screw the impedance matching, if they had gone BNC from the start these cable issues would not be relevant now.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 20:29
This is required reading for anyone who subscribes to the "it all just zeroes and ones innit" school of thought...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm
Shows how such a simple thing as the length of a piece of 'digital' cable might have a negative impact on the decoding process and resultant audio experience.
If you believe the claims made on this website then herein lays the problem. Science meets magic
brian2957
21-11-2015, 20:35
If you believe the claims made on this website then herein lays the problem. Science meets magic
Nope , it's science meets actually comparing it in your own system with your own ears .
If you believe the claims made on this website then herein lays the problem. Science meets magic
No - science meets science. Where do you get your rather quaint notion of 'magic' from?
This is not some mumbo-jumbo metaphysical claptrap but an argument based on the physics of a phenomenon which can (and should) be rebutted by argument based on the same principles, not inane foot stamping denial.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 21:18
No - science meets science. Where do you get your rather quaint notion of 'magic' from?
This is not some mumbo-jumbo metaphysical claptrap but an argument based on the physics of a phenomenon which can (and should) be rebutted by argument based on the same principles, not inane foot stamping denial.
As they say in my part of the world “he has a dog in the race”. He sells high priced cables to people like you. Nothing I can say will stop you spending money needlessly so why bother. If you are happy that’s all that matters. If you play music then there’s a fair chance that it came from a recording studio. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that they use special cables. If not then any damage they have caused by using inferior products can not be undone at a later stage by using a length of “special wire”
I’m off to tell the pope now that god does not exist. I may have better luck. Have a beer and calm your nerves :cool:
If you play music then there’s a fair chance that it came from a recording studio. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that they use special cables. If not then any damage they have caused by using inferior products can not be undone at a later stage by using a length of “special wire”
That's an age-old argument, Bob, and not a very good one. I myself quite happily use 'professional' interconnect cables (albeit with 'fancy plugs' fitted), but what if studios used cables that were intrinsically better than those they use now?
"Better" meaning more accurate/acting as less of a bottleneck, letting more of the music signal through (if one agrees that ALL cables are bad, and the better ones, simply less so). Might the results (quality of recordings produced) be even better??
And if so, why shouldn't the listener gain the same sonic advantages at the other end of the chain, by using the same "better" cables? ;)
Marco.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 21:57
That's an age-old argument, Bob, and not a very good one. I myself use 'professional' cables quite happily (albeit with 'fancy plugs' fitted), but what if studios used cables that were intrinsically better than they do now?
"Better" meaning more accurate/acting as less of a bottleneck, letting more music through (if one agrees that ALL cables are bad, and the better ones, simply less so). Might the results (quality of recordings produced) be even better than what they producing now?
And if so, why couldn't the listener gain the same sonic advantages at the other end of the chain, by using the same better cables? ;)
Marco.
The bottleneck principle is in fact the answer. Once lost it cannot be found.
So you agree that better cables act as less of a bottleneck? If so, you're not really in disagreement with anything folks are saying here :)
Marco.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 22:08
So you agree that better cables act as less of a bottleneck? If so, you're not really in disagreement with anything folks are saying here :)
Marco.
No I don’t agree. I’m not saying that recording studios need to spend thousands of pounds on special cables, they know better and so do I. My point was that if people believe that the cables they use are not up to the task then putting a length of special cable at the end of the chain will fix it. Sorry if I did not make that clear
The disagreement is over the content of the article that Mike linked to.
Essentially the author suggests that reflections in a digital cable can interfere with the transmission of the signal and introduce timing errors, commonly known as 'jitter'. This, he claims, gives a 'halo effect' to the sound.
Bob makes the point that if they have not resolved this in the studio then the recording will suffer the same effect which cannot be eliminated on replay. Although I suppose you could not make it worse by using certain cables. If the effect exists at all which in itself is highly debatable.
Sure, all that's fine.
I just think we have to get past the rather closed-minded and simplistic thinking stage of 'if science says it can't happen, then it doesn't' (when the fact is science is an ever-evolving source of learning, not a 'done deal', even when applied to audio), if we're ever going to properly understand things that we can genuinely hear, but perhaps not currently measure :)
Marco.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 22:28
Jitter is not a problem; in fact the amount of jitter on any reasonable DAC is so low that by any practical definition they could be classed as acoustically transparent. The same could be said for pre amps and power amps. Any amp that has a distortion below 0.1% is considered to be accurate. The weakest link in any system is the speakers. Figures of 10% distortion are not uncommon; an order of magnitude above the rest of the system. If you have money to spend then spending it here will achieve the biggest overall improvement in sound reproduction
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 22:31
Sure, all that's fine.
I just think we have to get past the rather closed-minded and simplistic thinking stage of 'if science says it can't happen, then it doesn't' (when the fact is science is an ever-evolving source of learning, not a 'done deal', even when applied to audio), if we're ever going to properly understand things that we can genuinely hear, but perhaps not currently measure :)
Marco.
If you can hear it then it can be measured. Speakers don’t move by themselves, they need electrical stimulation; last time I checked that could be measured.
Yes, but you need to know precisely *what* to measure in the first place, before you can measure it - and that's presuming that the required apparatus for doing the job actually exists! ;)
I'm afraid I'm a believer in that our God-given senses, in many ways, are much more sophisticated than are our current man-made measurements or test apparatus.
Marco.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 22:40
Yes, but you need to know *what* to measure first, before you can measure it - and that's presuming the required apparatus for doing the job actually exists! ;)
I'm afraid that I'm a believer in that our God-given senses are much more advanced than are our current man-made measurements.
Marco.
Yes it does, it’s called an audio comparator and uses an inverse waveform to sample the positive waveform in order to extract or measure the difference. They are widely used for calibration and testing purposes
And if use of that piece of apparatus still couldn't successfully identify a specific effect that we can *genuinely* hear, what is it then, 'automatically imagined'?
Or do we instead try and find or design a better tool for the job? REAL scientists would always consider the latter, rather than just lazily presume the former.... ;)
Marco.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 22:54
And if use of that piece of apparatus still can't successfully identify a specific effect that we can *genuinely* hear, what is then, 'automatically imagined'?
Or do we instead try and find or design a better tool for the job?
Marco.
By moving either the speakers or your relative position to them by as little as 1% can make a difference to audio perception by as much as 10% or more. No other component in the audio chain has this much influence.
That is a provable scientific fact that can be easily measured. Perhaps this is where all the perception comes into play. By changing a lead you can’t guarantee to place yourself back in the exact position you were before and therefore you may well hear a difference. It’s not really magic
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 22:58
Have you actually compared cables and listened to the variation in effects they have on the sound of the system they are used in?
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 23:01
Have you actually compared cables and listened to the variation in effects they have on the sound of the system they are used in?
Yes I have, both by self experimentation and AB blind testing. Have you ever taken part in a blind test and accurately identified one cable from another. If so you are the first person I’ve met that could
By moving either the speakers or your relative position to them by as little as 1% can make a difference to audio perception by as much as 10% or more. No other component in the audio chain has this much influence.
What's that got to do with the current topic of discussion of Ethernet patch cables?
That is a provable scientific fact that can be easily measured. Perhaps this is where all the perception comes into play. By changing a lead you can’t guarantee to place yourself back in the exact position you were before and therefore you may well hear a difference. It’s not really magic
<Yawn> Come on, Bob, you can do better than that... The same applies then with blind testing. What if one listener, conducting the test, goes for a shit? When he comes back, he might've sat 2 inches to the left of the speakers, from where he was before, so now the test is fucked! :lol:
Just admit it: you're a closed-minded, black and white thinking 'objectivist', who won't entertain the valid contrary observations of subjectivists with good ears... Your username is most apt! :ner:
Job done, we can all go to bed now.
Marco.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 23:10
What's that got to do with the current topic of discussion of Ethernet patch cables?
<Yawn> Come on, Bob, you can do better than that... The same applies then with blind testing. What if one listener, conducting the test, goes for a shit? When he comes back, he might've sat 2 inches to the left of the speakers, from where he was before, so now the test is fucked! :lol:
Just admit it: you're a closed-minded, black and white thinking 'objectivist', who won't entertain the valid contrary observations of subjectivists with good ears... Your username is most apt! :ner:
Job done, we can all go to bed now.
Marco.
I’m closed minded............
Variations in sound Relative to positioning of ear to speaker is a well known principle. I’m saying that this may answer the “I can hear a difference” anomaly. That’s not being closed minded; it’s trying to offer a passable solution :ner:
walpurgis
21-11-2015, 23:12
Yes I have, both by self experimentation and AB blind testing. Have you ever taken part in a blind test and accurately identified one cable from another. If so you are the first person I’ve met that could
You didn't say whether you had heard differences.
I’m closed minded............
Variations in sound Relative to positioning of ear to speaker is a well known principle. I’m saying that this may answer the “I can hear a difference” anomaly. That’s not being closed minded; it’s trying to offer a passable solution :ner:
Lol... What about this, then:
The same applies then with blind testing. What if one listener, conducting the test, goes for a shit? When he comes back, he might've sat 2 inches to the left of the speakers, from where he was before, so now the test is fucked! :lol:
Given your earlier assertions, the above, if it were to happen (as it so easily could) would surely negate the efficacy of any such blind testing? Therefore, in those circumstances, the results would be about as valid as any subjective listening tests.
Marco.
I’m closed minded............
Variations in sound Relative to positioning of ear to speaker is a well known principle. I’m saying that this may answer the “I can hear a difference” anomaly. That’s not being closed minded; it’s trying to offer a passable solution :ner:
It doesn't really work for me though. As Marco says it would also render blind tests ineffective unless you clamped the head in a vice like in Clockwork Orange. I think we do not have trouble differentiating slight changes in the speaker-ear relationship from changes caused by other factors.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 23:20
You didn't say whether you had heard differences.
No, I didn't. That is to say that I could not correctly identify to a point accuracy enough that exclude’s random chance. And I’m yet a meet anybody that can. Cable manufactures do not like this kind of acid test and to the best of my knowledge have ever taken part in one publicly. I wonder why?
I recall reading about a blind test of analogue interconnects and some reviewers were able to reliably identify differences. It isn't unknown and not that many cable blind tests get done because it is tedious.
No, I didn't. That is to say that I could not correctly identify to a point accuracy enough that exclude’s random chance. And I’m yet a meet anybody that can. Cable manufactures do not like this kind of acid test and to the best of my knowledge have ever taken part in one publicly. I wonder why?
Because they've got better things to do with their life? ;)
Maybe... Just a hunch!
Marco.
I recall reading about a blind test of analogue interconnects and some reviewers were able to reliably identify differences. It isn't unknown and not that many cable blind tests get done because it is tedious.
Indeed, inane tedium in the extreme.
I'd rather poke a red-hot needle up my Jap's eye, whilst munching a bag of Wasabi nuts. Hang on... Now, *there's* an idea for that party we discussed! :D
Marco.
cloth-ears
21-11-2015, 23:29
Lol... What about this, then:
Given your earlier assertions, the above, if it were to happen (as it so easily could) would surely negate the efficacy of any such blind testing? Therefore, in those circumstances, the results would be about as valid as any subjective listening tests.
Marco.
Laugh all you like Mr Marco, the facts speak for themselves. If you are truly saying that a 10% variation in sound perception through position is less lightly to skew test results then a 0.0000001 % variation in leads then gord bless you sir. Have a good night gentlemen, it’s been a blast :)
Indeed, I'd rather poke a red-hot needle up my Jap's eye, whilst munching a bag of Wasabi nuts. Hang on... Now, *there's* an idea for that party we discussed! :D
Marco.
aye, a knitting needle ;)
Laugh all you like Mr Marco, the facts speak for themselves.
As Mark Twain once said: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
Marco.
As they say in my part of the world “he has a dog in the race”. He sells high priced cables to people like you. Nothing I can say will stop you spending money needlessly so why bother. If you are happy that’s all that matters. If you play music then there’s a fair chance that it came from a recording studio. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that they use special cables. If not then any damage they have caused by using inferior products can not be undone at a later stage by using a length of “special wire”
I’m off to tell the pope now that god does not exist. I may have better luck. Have a beer and calm your nerves :cool:
Once again, you fail to come up with any valid (or even remotely objective) arguments and instead resort to basic ad-hominem, utter codswallop and what amounts to irrelevant jabber.
As to your assumption that I buy expensive high-end cable, I have no idea where you got that nonsense from and can only assume that you don't either and simply thought you'd pull something out a hat and see if it flies.
Laugh all you like Mr Marco, the facts speak for themselves. If you are truly saying that a 10% variation in sound perception through position is less lightly to skew test results then a 0.0000001 % variation in leads then gord bless you sir. Have a good night gentlemen, it’s been a blast :)
As I said earlier they are two different things and we have no trouble distinguishing them. Something sounds different because you have orientated yourself differently and something sounds different because the sound has changed at source. The ability to do that is hard wired into us.
No I don’t agree. I’m not saying that recording studios need to spend thousands of pounds on special cables, they know better and so do I. My point was that if people believe that the cables they use are not up to the task then putting a length of special cable at the end of the chain will fix it. Sorry if I did not make that clear
The most arse over tit argument I've heard in a long while .. must admit it made me chuckle though :lol:
Arkless Electronics
22-11-2015, 00:26
Do Ethernet patch cables make a difference? No. Obviously not. It's amazing how so much emphasis is put on things which just happen to be interchangeable, without any technical knowledge :lol:... whilst things that make genuine and marked improvements.... but you can't do yourself unless you are an experienced DIY'er with some technical knowledge, get ignored......
This is like watching car enthusiasts discussing which "go faster stripe" actually makes it go faster... whilst such things as higher lift cams, re-mapping of ECU etc are being totally ignored as if they didn't exist. I'll get my coat :eyebrows:
Do Ethernet patch cables make a difference? No. Obviously not. It's amazing how so much emphasis is put on things which just happen to be interchangeable, without any technical knowledge :lol:... whilst things that make genuine and marked improvements.... but you can't do yourself unless you are an experienced DIY'er with some technical knowledge, get ignored......
This is like watching car enthusiasts discussing which "go faster stripe" actually makes it go faster... whilst such things as higher lift cams, re-mapping of ECU etc are being totally ignored as if they didn't exist. I'll get my coat :eyebrows:
:lol: You've got a point there - nice analogy. Oops, we're talking digital cables here!
What about furry dice? You can't have 'Go Faster' stripes without furry dice! :nono:
:D
Marco.
What about furry dice? You can't have 'Go Faster' stripes without furry dice! :nono:
:D
Marco.
Or a legend at the top of the windscreen that says: "Kevin and Tracy" or some such! :lol:
Were they the participants who took part in the blind testing? :scratch: :eyebrows:
Marco.
Were they the participants who took part in the blind testing? :scratch: :eyebrows:
Marco.
No, that was "Marco and Del". "Kevin and Tracy" drive a sup'ed up Ford Mk. IV Cortina, whereas "Marco and Del" run a sup'ed up Mercedes.
Were they the participants who took part in the blind testing? :scratch: :eyebrows:
Marco.
Blind testing cars is never a good idea...
Clive197
22-11-2015, 10:03
Just admit it: you're a closed-minded, black and white thinking 'objectivist', who won't entertain the valid contrary observations of subjectivists with good ears... Your username is most apt! :ner:
Marco.
+1
I'm curious to know what kit Mr Cloth-ears listens too. It's not in his signature.
Do Ethernet patch cables make a difference? No. Obviously not. It's amazing how so much emphasis is put on things which just happen to be interchangeable, without any technical knowledge :lol:... whilst things that make genuine and marked improvements.... but you can't do yourself unless you are an experienced DIY'er with some technical knowledge, get ignored......
This is like watching car enthusiasts discussing which "go faster stripe" actually makes it go faster... whilst such things as higher lift cams, re-mapping of ECU etc are being totally ignored as if they didn't exist. I'll get my coat :eyebrows:
1+
some just need to keep the myth going in and on and on.. lets talk about routers then .. what happens in there ? but no, its not sexy to roll routers unless of course it is sold by Chord for 1355.- bucks with the blessing of the sales rep and has a gold plated IEC socket. Why not just admit that you could be imagining something is going on
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/to-the-audiophile-this-10000-ethernet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet
sq225917
22-11-2015, 10:31
It somethings sounds different then it measures different. Our ability to measure outstrips our hearing accuracy by a couple of orders of magnitude. No matter what the audible difference may be a file comparison will show if it exists or not.
I don't doubt that shielded and unshielded patch cables could sound different on some gear, but I totally disbelieve that any benefit exist in audiophile branded versions vs say Bulgins offerings.
This.
It somethings sounds different then it measures different. Our ability to measure outstrips our hearing accuracy by a couple of orders of magnitude. No matter what the audible difference may be a file comparison will show if it exists or not.
I don't doubt that shielded and unshielded patch cables could sound different on some gear, but I totally disbelieve that any benefit exist in audiophile branded versions vs say Bulgins offerings.
walpurgis
22-11-2015, 10:48
No matter what the audible difference may be a file comparison will show if it exists or not.
:scratch:
If a difference can be heard, a file comparison will show if it exists? Beats me!
i was just thinking .. how on earth do you compare how two different quality ethernet cables sound in the first place ? youd would have to be able to a/b switch them to be sure that there is a audible difference not talking about sq, just difference. its hard enough to detect a real difference between two similar DACs this way...
This is required reading for anyone who subscribes to the "it all just zeroes and ones innit" school of thought...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm
Shows how such a simple thing as the length of a piece of 'digital' cable might have a negative impact on the decoding process and resultant audio experience.
It is because of the analogue (clock) and RF-associated impedance considerations not the 1s and 0s, but when they are interpreted as arriving (time domain is the problem). Ethernet cables do not have impedance matching and jitter issues.
It is because of the analogue (clock) and RF-associated impedance considerations not the 1s and 0s, but when they are interpreted as arriving (time domain is the problem). Ethernet cables do not have impedance matching and jitter issues.
Agreed, I am also sceptical about the claims made about ethernet patch cables - but the post of mine you quoted was in response to a query about RCA coax interconnects that CE dismissed in post 48
It somethings sounds different then it measures different. Our ability to measure outstrips our hearing accuracy by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Agree with the first bit, but vehemently disagree with the second, although it's less to do with hearing acuity, and more to do with trusting our sensory inputs/gut instincts, which as humans, we've successfully relied upon for centuries.
Ok, who gave us the powers to create the science we have access to at present, and the tools with which to measure the phenomena we're currently able to identify? Answer: the same person who created US: God. God created the scientists, who gave us the science we know now.
Therefore, how can anything man-made, or derived from man, ever be superior to something God-given?
Last time I looked, our scientific understanding doesn't currently enable us to create a human brain, so when we can't get that far, how on earth can any piece of man-made apparatus ever hope to measure everything that said brains, and our ears, allow us to genuinely hear??
Science should be used to DISCOVER NEW things, not just to prove the existence of what we currently know - or worst of all - used as a tool to bolster blinkered prejudices, or to browbeat others of a different persuasion into conforming to a specific mindset! ;)
Marco.
cloth-ears
22-11-2015, 17:48
Agree with the first bit, but vehemently disagree with the second, although it's less to do with hearing acuity, and more to do with trusting our sensory inputs/gut instincts, which as humans, we've successfully relied upon for centuries.
Ok, who gave us the powers to create the science we have access to at present, and the tools with which to measure the phenomena we're currently able to identify? Answer: the same person who created US: God. God created the scientists, who gave us the science we know now.
Therefore, how can anything man-made, or derived from man, ever be superior to something God-given?
Last time I looked, our scientific understanding doesn't currently enable us to create a human brain, so when we can't get that far, how on earth can any piece of man-made apparatus ever hope to measure everything that said brains, and our ears, allow us to genuinely hear??
Science should be used to DISCOVER NEW things, not just to prove the existence of what we currently know - or worst of all - used as a tool to bolster blinkered prejudices, or to browbeat others of a different persuasion into conforming to a specific mindset! ;)
Marco.
Oh no, now we are bringing god into the equation. According to god, looking through his manual (The Holy Bible) the earth is the centre of the universe which the sun revolves, dinosaurs never existed and the earth is less than 4,000 years old. Really; is this the best you can do? Good grief
Spectral Morn
22-11-2015, 18:34
Oh no, now we are bringing god into the equation. According to god, looking through his manual (The Holy Bible) the earth is the centre of the universe which the sun revolves, dinosaurs never existed and the earth is less than 4,000 years old. Really; is this the best you can do? Good grief
Somewhat ignorant of the facts comment there. I would suggest you brush up, on the topic Marco is looking to introduce, before commenting.
cloth-ears
22-11-2015, 19:21
Somewhat ignorant of the facts comment there. I would suggest you brush up, on the topic Marco is looking to introduce, before commenting.
I’m quite sure that Marco is capable of defending himself. If you have a scientific fact to present then please do so, otherwise................
So only scientific facts count as being relevant, Bob? IMHO, you suffer from rather rigid binary thinking, my friend.
I get the distinct feeling that your mind is already closed to entertaining the existence of anything outside of your own prejudices, and so there's little point in extrapolating the discussion in the way I had intended.
Marco.
I will remind you of the ethos of the site Bob. and to remember the science is not the be all of audio reproduction.
this nice well phrased quote from the esteemed Paul Haynes
Paul Hynes View Post
Several of my friends over the years have shown the ability to discern perfect pitch just by listening to a note. They could tell if the note was off pitch by small amounts. In the past our survival in the wild was based on a keen sense of sight and hearing. Being able to judge distance and direction accurately could mean the difference between life, or death, at the hands of a predator. The human brain is a very complex organ that is capable of processing sensory input in a way that focuses on important data and ignores unimportant data. Many have reported hearing signal events buried in the noise floor.
There are plenty of examples of audio equipment with exemplary measurements that do not convey music in a comprehensible way. On balance I will take what I hear over measurements every time.
Agreed, I am also sceptical about the claims made about ethernet patch cables - but the post of mine you quoted was in response to a query about RCA coax interconnects that CE dismissed in post 48
Agreed too. :)
cloth-ears
22-11-2015, 20:34
I will remind you of the ethos of the site Bob. and to remember the science is not the be all of audio reproduction.
this nice well phrased quote from the esteemed Paul Haynes
Several of my friends over the years have shown the ability to discern perfect pitch just by listening to a note. They could tell if the note was off pitch by small amounts. In the past our survival in the wild was based on a keen sense of sight and hearing. Being able to judge distance and direction accurately could mean the difference between life, or death, at the hands of a predator. The human brain is a very complex organ that is capable of processing sensory input in a way that focuses on important data and ignores unimportant data. Many have reported hearing signal events buried in the noise floor.
There are plenty of examples of audio equipment with exemplary measurements that do not convey music in a comprehensible way. On balance I will take what I hear over measurements every time.
Not too sure how that quote is relevant. I fully understand the concept of perfect pitch, it’s well known and its validity is accepted and not in question. However, how do we know his friends have perfect pitch? If it was a matter of opinion then the argument is not supported. If on the other hand the accuracy of their pitch identification ability's was measured using scientific instruments then your argument is not supported.
cloth-ears
22-11-2015, 20:47
So only scientific facts count as being relevant, Bob? IMHO, you suffer from rather rigid binary thinking, my friend.
I get the distinct feeling that your mind is already closed to entertaining the existence of anything outside of your own prejudices, and so there's little point in extrapolating the discussion in the way I had intended.
Marco.
As a scientist I am not closed minded, just the opposite. However if someone wants to offer a better alternative to sound scientific principles then all I ask is for is proof. Hearsay or anecdotal evidence is not credible proof. Just because I am not willing to bend over just because “some bloke” says it works is in my opinion insufficient reason to call me closed minded. Sorry Mr Marco, that's just the way I am. Np need to call off the wedding
sq225917
22-11-2015, 23:20
Marco, I'm not sure who this god guy is, or if he even exists. But that doesn't alter the fact that mechanical transducers are capable of detecting pressure waves that are both smaller in magnitude, and lower and higher in frequency than are our god given ears. That's just a matter of record. What we can do with what we hear is a different matter, there's some complex processing going on between those lug holes.
I'll rely on science to tell me what is and what isn't real. I've not yet had god show me anything, I think.
No problem with that, Simon. I didn't expect you to agree. Your have your opinions in this area, and I have mine :)
Marco.
sq225917
23-11-2015, 00:28
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dhk0xC6L9pKM&ved=0ahUKEwj95NH9oqXJAhUFXRQKHWrHC9UQtwIIkgEwHA&usg=AFQjCNF5QySfZ_RUwm66y6v0frbM-ZBqLA
Arkless Electronics
23-11-2015, 00:38
This is a prime example of "Arkless' first law of internet fora" __ "The amount of posts attracted by any subject will be inversely proportional to its relevance but proportional to the ease which it may be implemented" :eyebrows:
This is a prime example of "Arkless' first law of internet fora" __ "The amount of posts attracted by any subject will be inversely proportional to its relevance but proportional to the ease which it may be implemented" :eyebrows:
AKA 'The Twitter Effect'
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dhk0xC6L9pKM&ved=0ahUKEwj95NH9oqXJAhUFXRQKHWrHC9UQtwIIkgEwHA&usg=AFQjCNF5QySfZ_RUwm66y6v0frbM-ZBqLA
:D :D
I'll certainly *always* seek to be different. Long live the heretics and free-thinkers! :yesbruv:
Marco.
cloth-ears
23-11-2015, 19:47
It seems a lot of people on this forum are anti test equipment. I use and rely on it all the time. Perhaps it’s a lack of understanding of the capabilities of such equipment. I suppose if the only test equipment you have ever used is a volt meter then yes, obvious limitations exist is measuring minor effects in audio reproduction. But as I have said many times before, humans make very bad testers. We are far too subjective. As an example, if you put three people in a room for five minutes but don’t allow them to take any form of timepiece with them they would all have a different opinion as to how long they had been in there for.
With the naked eye we can tell the difference between a 10W light bulb and a 40W light bulb (a difference of 30W) but we can’t tell the difference between a 1000W bulb and a 1,100W bulb (a difference of 100W). Test equipment can discriminate down to minute fractions of a watt.
At the quantum level things are very small but using clever science we can detect events down at this level. It’s hard to understand or comprehend events so small. If I may use an analogy for the purposes of scale, if you could imagine being in Wembley Stadium in the final minutes of a world cup match between England and Germany. Rooney scores the winning goal, the roar of the crowd is defining. At the same time an ant standing in the middle of the pitch scratches its head. At the quantum level that ant scratching would be considered as a measurable event. As crazy as it may sound, listening to an ant scratching its head amongst all the background noise would be considered a fairly simple task.
Getting back to our three men in a room; five minutes is an age for test equipment. Seconds are too big. Even nanoseconds are too long (one billionth of a second). Today we measure quantum events in planks (one plank is almost 10 to the power of 40 times less than a second)
So do I believe that test equipment is better at measuring audio signals than humans? Yes I do, and I’m not ashamed to say so. If nothing else perhaps you can see where I’m coming from when people tell me that they can hear things that can’t be measured. OK, it’s off my chest now
It seems a lot of people on this forum are anti test equipment.
Not anti-test equipment (used in the right way), but anti the notion that the results they produce are all there is to know, in terms of what they're measuring - or that nothing further needs measured in that area, simply because 'Johnny's book of current scientific facts', says so! ;)
Above all though, the thing I'm most anti, is closed-mindedness, and the blinkered notion that ALL there is to know about how the human ear and brain treats music signals, is already known..... [The mantra of 'measurists'].
Marco.
Here's a nice quote from Our Ethos, Bob, for you to study:
I think many so-called "objectivists" oversimplify the processes involved in reproducing recorded music electrically (although many audio designers are perhaps guilty of over-complicating their designs at times). They ignore the fact that music signals themselves can be quite complex, certainly in conjunction with human perception of them. Psychoacoustics is an area those with inquisitive (i.e. open) scientific minds should like to explore.
I note also that most objectivists believe that speakers make the most difference. This is probably true if you just listen to the noise in the room which I think most of them probably do. When you begin to listen to the recorded music actively and intently it is at this point that you realise, certainly over time, that subtle sonic differences are actually rather significant in terms of how we actually interpret the musical message.
One of the keys to the success and failure of a system to convey this message is in addressing issues of timing and phase - very difficult to measure.
The purpose of the Art of Sound is to explore ways of ensuring the musical message embedded in recordings reaches your brain via your audio system.
Really, the 'Our Ethos' section of the forum should be read and digested by all potential new members before joining AoS, and agreed with, or if disagreed with, then joining should perhaps be reconsidered, as it saves these types of discussions cropping up from those who, shall we say, are somewhat 'off message'! ;)
Marco.
cloth-ears
23-11-2015, 20:19
Not anti-test equipment (used in the right way), but anti the belief that the results they produce are all there is to know, in terms of what they're measuring - or that nothing further needs measured in that area, simply because 'Johnny's book of current scientific facts', says so! ;)
Above all though, the thing I'm most anti, is closed-mindedness, and the blinkered notion that ALL there is to know about how the human ears and brain treats music signals, is already known.....
Marco.
I suppose we are never going agree on this one. I’m ashamed to admit I have never read 'Johnny's book of current scientific facts'. Is that from the same series as “Jimmy’s book of some bloke who makes lots of money selling this gadget told me this works so I’m getting one?”
Love you Marco x
Yes, that'll be the one!
Love you too, sweet-cheeks :kiss: :kiss:
Marco.
Mark Grant
23-11-2015, 21:59
I think bone conduction has something to do with all the disagreements about why some people hear differences that others cannot.
Maybe some people have better/different hearing that is different to a microphone that is a sensitive mechanical device rather than a complex organic structure.
Someone doing some research.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/ear-bone-conduction-080513.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_conduction
Not saying that Ethernet cables make night and day differences, just a thought about why there are these disagreements.
Interesting angle on the discussion, Mark.
It basically refers to what I said earlier, which is that we need to start looking much more deeply into the REAL reasons for why many of us *can* genuinely hear effects with certain types of audio equipment and ancillaries, which currently we can't measure, and thus prove exist, instead of automatically dismissing them as 'imagined nonsense', simply because, superficially, they don't conform with currently accepted wisdom.
REAL scientists aren't usually guilty of lazy thinking or closed-mindedness, which IMO, is what's being demonstrated here (and elsewhere), in terms of this subject, by pseudo-scientists/glorified engineers and consumer saviours, posing as such... ;)
Marco.
Audio Advent
25-11-2015, 14:18
I think bone conduction has something to do with all the disagreements about why some people hear differences that others cannot.
Maybe some people have better/different hearing that is different to a microphone that is a sensitive mechanical device rather than a complex organic structure.
Someone doing some research.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/ear-bone-conduction-080513.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_conduction
Not saying that Ethernet cables make night and day differences, just a thought about why there are these disagreements.
From the articule:
"That's why your recorded voice sounds so different to you," says Puria. "The bone conduction pathway is eliminated."
As he talks, Puria produces a pair of earphones with metal contacts rather than the usual earbuds. "You can also experience the opposite effect with these," he says, placing the contacts on the mastoid bones of his interviewer. "They allow you to hear solely through the bone conduction pathway."
Bone conduction doesn't come into the realms of normal listening to sounds through the air hence the person saying the above and then requiring special equipment to play sounds via bone conduction.
I do personally use bone conduction to listen but only to guitar bodies and sometimes some odd things :) like when a flag pole is resonanting in the wind.
Audio Advent
25-11-2015, 14:27
Interesting angle on the discussion, Mark.
It basically refers to what I said earlier, which is that we need to start looking much more deeply into the REAL reasons for why many of us *can* genuinely hear effects with certain types of audio equipment and ancillaries, which currently we can't measure, and thus prove exist, instead of automatically dismissing them as 'imagined nonsense', simply because, superficially, they don't conform with currently accepted wisdom.
"Genuinely hear effects" - that phrase is either automatically dismissing confirmation bias/placebo (which have been practically proved beyond doubt are real effects).
Or you're using the phrase to mean "what the brain 'hears' as a genuine effect.. " - well, the brian reacts to imagination as if it was real and therefore, yes, definately genuinely hears stuff which is imagined, in that all the very same neural pathways are lit up from an imagined sound as would be by a real sound.
There is NO WAY for an individual to descern between the two.
So each individual should be open to both possibilities. My way of doing that is to practically ignore subtle effects and instead focus on practicallity/aesthetics/cost/"ego resiliance to the feeling of being fooled" when a perceived subtle effect has been found. Quite often, coming back to something similar much much later I then hear no effect and conclude I was probably mistaken before.
With CAT7 cable as in this thread, they look the same, the cost is negligable... so why not use it instead and who cares if the result is real or not. Just don't up the stakes by spending £100s on a dressed-up CAT7 cable... unless it looks particularly nice and the aesthetics appear worth it.
Audio Advent
25-11-2015, 14:48
- or worst of all - used as a tool to bolster blinkered prejudices, or to browbeat others of a different persuasion into conforming to a specific mindset! ;)
Marco.
Sorry, where you talking about religion there or science?
If you wanted an on-going theme of science, one which has been true over thousands and thousands of years it is that science has shown religious beliefs to be wrong again and again and again, never the other way around.
There comes a point where you should surely start to think "maybe none of this religion stuff is correct ?" That is the the ultimate open mindedness in terms of the general human race (who are mostly religious, albeit completely conflicting beliefs across societies). Anyone with religion of the organised type is automatically blinkered by habit of mental thought and practice, so either one must regard that blinkered thinking as wholly correct and good or reject it.
Funnily enough, in modern Christian religion, or at least many branches of it, Doubting Thomas is vilified completely and utterly for not believing and yet all he wanted was first hand experience. That to me rings true in cases like this - people wanting first-hand experience of sonic differences and rejecting the automatic acceptance of people's beliefs in what they think they heard , are often villified - and yet surely the strongest believer will be the one who at first doubts and then is amazed to find the same first hand?
Therefore disbelief and trying things for oneself should be encouraged - oh, isn't that the basis of science? Now, what isn't scientific is refusing to even investigate but still harping on that it must be imagined, at that point it's just another belief.
Now, what isn't scientific is refusing to even investigate but still harping on that it must be imagined, at that point it's just another belief.
Very true. We all remember that thing with the stomach ulcers being caused by bacteria where they were laughed out of court as it was so improbable until it was finally looked into and proved to be correct.
My take is that if someone has one listen and pronounces a difference where there shouldn't be one then it is suspect. If they have multiple listens and still keep hearing that difference then it is worthy of investigation. It is quite likely that the investigation will reveal that there is a difference, the cause of which is logical and explicable but not necessarily the cause that the listener suspected.
Dismissing all unlikely differences as 'imagined' is at best a lazy response, at worst it is bad science.
My take is that if someone has one listen and pronounces a difference where there shouldn't be one then it is suspect. If they have multiple listens and still keep hearing that difference then it is worthy of investigation. It is quite likely that the investigation will reveal that there is a difference, the cause of which is logical and explicable but not necessarily the cause that the listener suspected.
I completely concur, and that is 100% my position.
Any major opinion I hold in audio, such as for example mains cables, which are professionally designed for audio purposes, outperforming bog-standard 'kettle leads', when used in a quality hi-fi system, capable of genuine high-resolution (although to 'measurists' that is 'bollocks'), has been formed over a period of MANY YEARS, and experienced in MANY DIFFERENT systems and circumstances, not just on a 'whim' or a two-minute listen...
Therefore, that extensive experience satisfies my judgement criteria sufficiently for me to consider that the (repeatable) effects I can hear, with these types of mains cables, are genuine, and not imagined, which is why I express it as such. Of course, that doesn't make it an indisputable fact, but certainly good enough for me to be convinced that, in this instance, I'm not being 'fooled'.
Furthermore, I'm far from alone in holding that view, and so all the 1000s of others with similar experiences to my own, in that respect, who can hear the same things with 'foo mains leads', IMO, can't ALL be wrong - so there must be *something* in it.
At that point, PROPER scientists would be curious enough to try and discover what's responsible for causing those effects, rather than simply automatically, and ignorantly, dismissing them as 'imagined', just because their existence doesn't appear to conform with currently accepted wisdom.
Dismissing all unlikely differences as 'imagined' is at best a lazy response, at worst it is bad science.
Indeed - and *that* is the fundamental issue here, and what I was getting at before! :)
Marco.
Sorry, where you talking about religion there or science?
If you wanted an on-going theme of science, one which has been true over thousands and thousands of years it is that science has shown religious beliefs to be wrong again and again and again, never the other way around.
There comes a point where you should surely start to think "maybe none of this religion stuff is correct ?"
Sam, I base my opinions, in that respect, on my life experiences to date, and what I feel in my heart, not on what it says in text books, or how much science has (supposedly) 'disproved this religion stuff'.
Too much has happened in my life, which I'm not going into now, that can't be glibly, superficially or even successfully explained away (or not) by measurements, 'objective proof', or any form of facts and figures, for me to conclude anything other than what my Catholic faith has taught me is true.
I shall say no more on this matter than that.
Marco.
wee tee cee
25-11-2015, 16:56
I hard wired my lap top with a cat 6 cable for just over a fiver. Spotify premium has improved hard wired over wifi. Doesn't make a jot of difference to my flac files in the hard drive but it has closed the gap. Well worth trying for a few quid.
Has got me thinking whether I could live just with Spotify...its sounding marvellous.
As far as the religion thing goes it is interesting as the knowledge of quantum physics develops how much of it matches knowledge that has been taught for thousands of years in the Far East. The idea that all matter is composed of strings vibrating at different frequencies for instance. Or the idea that there are an infinite number of universes in which every possibility is actualised.
People get too hung up on the sound-bite bollox: ('The Bible says the Earth is only 3000 years old so it must be complete rubbish' - well, no, it actually doesn't say that at all but lets not let facts get in the way) and don't take time to think and investigate for themselves.
Now, what isn't scientific is refusing to even investigate but still harping on that it must be imagined, at that point it's just another belief.
Yes, that is very true (especially the last bit), and something I've said here many times. The fact is, those who behave that way are themselves ALSO 'believers'; simply in a different faith! ;)
Marco.
As far as the religion thing goes it is interesting as the knowledge of quantum physics develops how much of it matches knowledge that has been taught for thousands of years in the Far East. The idea that all matter is composed of strings vibrating at different frequencies for instance. Or the idea that there are an infinite number of universes in which every possibility is actualised.
People get too hung up on the sound-bite bollox: ('The Bible says the Earth is only 3000 years old so it must be complete rubbish' - well, no, it actually doesn't say that at all but lets not let facts get in the way) and don't take time to think and investigate for themselves.
certainly dont recall that being stated in the NT(although have heard some folk saying this especially in America's bible belt) which I have read a fair bit of when younger. I found it an interesting book b4 folk get all uppety:). the OT was something else completely and not for me in general as a read.
as for the infinate universe theme, well it has a lot going for it, and may also have some connection to where perfectly rational folk say they have seen ghosts etc. windows etc ;) dunno, but I wont fling it out as impossible as I wont life on other planets.. to do so would be absurd imo... as applies to notions of God or whoever you may believe in. May not be any proof of these things but there aint any agin it either
The OT gives the ages the patrirarchs lived to, starting with Adam. So if you take the starting point of the Earth as being from the birth of Adam you can work it out as some Bishop did in the dim and distant. But it isn't really made clear that there was no time period between the earth being created and the creation of Adam. At no point is the age of the earth specifically stated in old or new testaments.
Plus the whole story is pinched from the Babylonians who got it from the Sumerians. And they clim they got the story from 'the gods' note the plural. Indeed the plural survives into the ancient Greek and the Hebrew translations but was changed in the Christian era when the bible as we know it was compiled. Council of Nicea 545 AD.
Yes, that is very true (especially the last bit), and something I've said here many times. The fact is, those who behave that way are themselves ALSO 'believers'; simply in a different faith! ;)
Marco.
I have no opinion about what anyone else may chose to believe or not, but I have to argue against the old one of science just being another belief. Its not true. Science is not a system of belief, it is a method that starts with observed facts and provides a sequence of steps (the method) that allows anyone to test a set of hypotheses that are intended to explain the observed facts. No faith is required, you are able to try yourself every experiment that has ever been done to determine if the set of hypothesis match the observed world. No belief or acceptance of authority is required.
The OT gives the ages the patrirarchs lived to, starting with Adam. So if you take the starting point of the Earth as being from the birth of Adam you can work it out as some Bishop did in the dim and distant. But it isn't really made clear that there was no time period between the earth being created and the creation of Adam. At no point is the age of the earth specifically stated in old ornrw testaments.
Plus the whole story is pinched from the Babylonians who got it from the Sumerians. And they clim they got the story from 'the gods' note the plural. Indeed the plural survives into the ancient Greek and the Hebrew trsnslations but was changed in the Christian ers when the bible as we know it was compiled. Council of Nicea 545 AD.
As derived by James Ussher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology. See also: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/the-world-born-in-4004-bc/
I have no opinion about what anyone else may chose to believe or not, but I have to argue against the old one of science just being another belief. Its not true. Science is not a system of belief, it is a method that starts with observed facts and provides a sequence of steps (the method) that allows anyone to test a set of hypotheses that are intended to explain the observed facts. No faith is required, you are able to try yourself every experiment that has ever been done to determine if the set of hypothesis match the observed world. No belief or acceptance of authority is required.
I agree, Nick, but that's not how I meant it :)
The 'faith' or 'belief' I was referring to was that of science currently 'knowing all', in terms of audio, and as a result, there is nothing new to discover or learn: the mantra preached by many 'objectivists/measurists'. Also, that anything which doesn't conform with currently accepted wisdom, is automatically imagined.
The fact is, they believe that to be true, just as much as I believe it to be false. However, neither of us can prove our position as conclusively correct. Therefore, we're both 'believers', but simply in a different 'faith'. My faith is [ultimately] placed in my human senses, and their faith is in science currently 'knowing all'.
Both, however, are valid examples of a belief system in action.
Marco.
Well, as you say thats just another set of belief's then, but its not science you are talking about but someone’s misguided view of what science is. However proof is a important part of science, but that has to based in the first place on repeatable observations. Ironically, science is based on observation, belief just on faith, which in some ways puts science very much into the subjective camp. It is possible that something like Peter Belts tosh operates within the realm of the social sciences, but still can be covered by the method :-)
Lol...Indeed. However, you nail it here:
Well, as you say thats just another set of belief's then, but its not science you are talking about but someone’s misguided view of what science is.
That sums up the argument from most 'objectivists', who post on forums! ;)
What causes the friction, however, is when they INSIST that *their* beliefs are irrefutably correct, and your contrary ones are irrefutably wrong/'imagined'..... :doh:
The key word here, of course, is 'irrefutably', because for an 'objectivist's' brain to function without distress, everything in life must be neatly compartmentalised into little 'black or white' boxes. There must be no 'grey areas', or fear of uncertainty! :nono:
Anyway, the way to defuse the friction, is for both parties to RESPECT each other's views, even if they disagree with them. Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Everyone wants to 'win' the argument and browbeat the other into submission.
Marco.
With no disrespect meant for those folk of Faith...
Tying in to the age of the earth/belief thing...and to paraphrase Bill Hicks...I always wondered why dinosaurs weren't mentioned in these things? :scratch:
Seems that question has been thought of...
(Stick with me here, it alludes to "matters of belief in the face of scientific evidence...and the topical idea here of instilling your beliefs in others...A forum favourite...)
I'm mentioning the example below as an extreme case of belief systems being forced on people, which in my opinion is not good in any way.
Could be a religious example, a luddite example...whatever.
This just illustrates my point well. :)
When Did Dinosaurs Live?
BTW This is from a Christian website designed to "arm" children with answers to people when their beliefs are questioned by others.
"The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible.
The Bible, God’s very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bible—Genesis—teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.
Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod%2020.11)). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years."
Belief...You heard it here first kids...:scratch:
As far as the religion thing goes it is interesting as the knowledge of quantum physics develops how much of it matches knowledge that has been taught for thousands of years in the Far East. The idea that all matter is composed of strings vibrating at different frequencies for instance. Or the idea that there are an infinite number of universes in which every possibility is actualised.
People get too hung up on the sound-bite bollox: ('The Bible says the Earth is only 3000 years old so it must be complete rubbish' - well, no, it actually doesn't say that at all but lets not let facts get in the way) and don't take time to think and investigate for themselves.
cloth-ears
25-11-2015, 21:00
With no disrespect meant for those folk of Faith...
Tying in to the age of the earth/belief thing...I always wondered why dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the good book? :scratch:
Seems that question has been thought of...
(Stick with me here, it alludes to "matters of belief in the face of scientific evidence...and the topical idea here of instilling your beliefs in others...A forum favourite...)
This is from a Christian website designed to "arm" children with answers to people when their beliefs are questioned by others.
When Did Dinosaurs Live?
The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
IRONIC (My emphasis..)
Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived.Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible.
The Bible, God’s very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bible—Genesis—teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.
Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod%2020.11)). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.
Belief...You heard it here first kids...:scratch:
The last thing I want do is get into a religious discussion, it never ends well. For that reason I shall refrain from picking at the many holes in your argument.
There is one thing however. The excavated dinosaur bones my not have had a date stamp on them in a way that is obvious. In fact it wasn’t until relatively recently (in the grand scheme of things) that we are able to date these bones using a scientific method called carbon-14 dating. The explanation of how this works would take too long. Instead if you have ever removed a picture off a wall that has been there for some time you may have noticed that the wall around the picture is a lighter shade than the place where the picture covered, almost like a shadow. The longer the picture had been there the bigger the difference is colour. Therefore if a number of pictures had been placed on that wall at different times over an extended period it should possible to predict which picture had been put first and so on. Although not quite the same as carbon dating I think you get the idea. Of course this only works if you believe in the process, I do
Not my argument Bob, especially as a tolerant non religious person.
I've edited my original post, maybe it wasn't clear that this wasn't my thinking. :)
I was pointing out how (imo) absurd forcing one's own beliefs on others can be?
The above example illustrates that point well.
I know Carbon Dating (and the science behind it), and the picture shadow illustration is a good one.
Without wanting to drag the thread off course TOO much, especially in contentious subjects, the best example of its use in Science vs Belief was when the Turin Shroud was dated more recently that was initially believed...
But..belief can bring some peace to some people and that's never a bad thing in my book.
Its down to personal choice really.
Always found it best though never to get in someones face when they disagree with you, and that includes Network cables!
The last thing I want do is get into a religious discussion, it never ends well. For that reason I shall refrain from picking at the many holes in your argument.
There is one thing however. The excavated dinosaur bones my not have had a date stamp on them in a way that is obvious. In fact it wasn’t until relatively recently (in the grand scheme of things) that we are able to date these bones using a scientific method called carbon-14 dating. The explanation of how this works would take too long. Instead if you have ever removed a picture off a wall that has been there for some time you may have noticed that the wall around the picture is a lighter shade than the place where the picture covered, almost like a shadow. The longer the picture had been there the bigger the difference is colour. Therefore if a number of pictures had been placed on that wall at different times over an extended period it should possible to predict which picture had been put first and so on. Although not quite the same as carbon dating I think you get the idea. Of course this only works if you believe in the process, I do
cloth-ears
25-11-2015, 21:40
Not my argument Bob, especially as a tolerant non religious person.
I was pointing out how (imo) absurd forcing one's own dogma on others can be?
The above example (an extreme one, and that's all it was... :)) illustrates this point well.
I know Carbon Dating (and the science behind it), and the picture shadow illustration is a good one.
Without wanting to drag the thread off course TOO much, especially in contentious subjects, the best example of its use in Science vs Belief was when the Turin Shroud was dated more recently that was initially believed...
But..belief can bring some peace to some people and that's never a bad thing in my book.
Its down to personal choice really.
Always found it best not to get in someones face when they disagree with you, and that includes Network cables!
Oh good, for a minute I thought I was going to have a fatwa put on me. :doh:
I never try to force my opinion on anybody. All I say is that if science has already come up with an answer then why look for a mystical one. I have found over time tho that science has no place in the hearts of people who pay more than three quid for a kettle lead. I do however find their explanations amusing.
Glad you liked my picture on wall analogy :)
All I say is that if science has already come up with an answer then why look for a mystical one.
Perhaps because the "answer" is incomplete or only partially correct? Your use of the word "mystical" is also patronising.
I have found over time tho that science has no place in the hearts of people who pay more than three quid for a kettle lead.
That's complete nonsense. I have absolutely nothing against science used in the right way, rather than simply to bolster someone's prejudices, because they're too closed-minded to entertain the existence of other perfectly plausible explanations for a particular phenomenon, outside of what they consider as fact.
I do however find their explanations amusing.
Again that's a rather condescending/belittling remark, which is something we don't tolerate here. Always remember that AoS is primarily a subjectivist forum. Therefore, rein it in Bob, or you'll be taking a little holiday.
Marco.
Seriously?
:lol: Brilliant.
S'pose the more extreme of the "anti science" folk comes from a place of self belief and that thing of not wanting to challenge your own dogma.
On the other foot though there's the "measurebators", the more extreme examples (imo) just suck the joy out of the whole thing.
But hey, if they are happy....
I know of one Guy (no names mentioned, *coff Serge*) who doesn't care if it sounds better...if it doesn't measure better its no good!
Sets up A1 flipchart and points to the Venn diagram...
I think most folk live in the happy medium, between the two opposites, its just human nature I guess, especially behind a keyboard, to state your case.
These arguments will go on forever, I've been on hifi forums since back in the pre 'Wam Hifi Choice days (97/98 I think?) and like a penny in the washing machine they keep going round and round and round...
I use a mix of both my ears and common sense, works for me. I just enjoy the choons. :)
Oh good, for a minute I thought I was going to have a fatwa put on me. :doh:
I never try to force my opinion on anybody. All I say is that if science has already come up with an answer then why look for a mystical one. I have found over time tho that science has no place in the hearts of people who pay more than three quid for a kettle lead. I do however find their explanations amusing.
Glad you liked my picture on wall analogy :)
Seriously?
:lol: Brilliant.
S'pose the more extreme of the "anti science" folk comes from a place of self belief and that thing of not wanting to challenge your own dogma.
On the other foot though there's the "measurebators", the more extreme examples (imo) just suck the joy out of the whole thing.
But hey, if they are happy....
I know of one Guy (no names mentioned, *coff Serge*) who doesn't care if it sounds better...if it doesn't measure better its no good!
Sets up A1 flipchart and points to the Venn diagram...
I think most folk live in the happy medium, between the two opposites, its just human nature I guess, especially behind a keyboard, to state your case.
These arguments will go on forever, I've been on hifi forums since back in the pre 'Wam Hifi Choice days and like a penny in the washing machine they keep going round and round and round...
I use a mix of both my ears and common sense, works for me. I just enjoy the choons. :)
Same here (on all counts), Gaz.
I've been on hi-fi forums since 2000, so have seen it all, and you're right, these 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' types of discussions are only destined to end ONE way, and it's never well [usually when objectivists enter 'condescending mode', when they consider what they're reading from subjectivists is an affront to their, let's call them, 'scientific sensibilities'] :doh:
Oh, in terms of dogma, it works both ways, as far as subjectivists and objectivists are concerned... ;)
Marco.
P.S Serge is beyond help!
cloth-ears
25-11-2015, 22:34
I'll Get My Coat..................................
Why is that always the reaction when folk don't get things all their own way? :rolleyes:
There's no need to go anywhere; simply observe the ethos of the site, Bob, admit when you've been out of order, and if you're not able to offer constructive comment, then say nothing and post on other discussions where that's not the case.
That's the logical, non-'hissy fit' way to behave :)
I'm afraid that you're on a hiding to nothing in these types of debates, as with respect, your views are too entrenched.
Marco.
Why is that always the reaction when folk don't get things all their own way? :rolleyes:
It's a figure of speech Marco - a joke rather than a hissy fit.
"I'll get me coat... " originated as a catchphrase in 'The Fast Show' and was used by a character played by Mark Williams who always managed to put his foot in it at social events.... :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaI6m2x6Nf4
(couldn't find a longer extract....)
cloth-ears
26-11-2015, 05:40
It's a figure of speech Marco - a joke rather than a hissy fit.
"I'll get me coat... " originated as a catchphrase in 'The Fast Show' and was used by a character played by Mark Williams who always managed to put his foot in it at social events.... :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaI6m2x6Nf4
(couldn't find a longer extract....)
Thank you mikmas, I was beginning to think that I was the only one who watched The Fast Show
Yes, I'm fully familiar with the term, but used in isolation, especially after the dispute that's just occurred, it could also be taken to mean 'I'm off' (and leaving the forum). Pleased to see that's not the case :)
Marco.
PaulStewart
26-11-2015, 08:32
Just to get my tuppence worth in, and perhaps I should mention I did my first degree in Physics and post grad in the murky subjective world of Psycho-acoustics. The history of science is littered with respected theories, that turned out to be wrong, look up Phlogiston theory for instance.
When I was doing research into "Infra bass and perceptions of reality in sound staging", which followed on from something Graham Holiman started. We found that a lot of what we did was indeed measurable, but a lot of what the large group of test subjects percieved was not, both they and us the crew could hear the effect, without going into the full details of something thing that is a large corporations Intellectual property, I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on. So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approch is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back.
Rant over, going to have a cup of tea and listen to some Bach
tubehunter
26-11-2015, 08:49
To answer the op question No.
CRC calculations
Whenever digital data is stored or interfaced, data corruption might occur. Since the beginning of computer science, people have been thinking of ways to deal with this type of problem. For serial data they came up with the solution to attach aparity bit to each sent byte. This simple detection mechanism works if an odd number of bits in a byte changes, but an even number of false bits in one byte will not be detected by the parity check. To overcome this problem people have searched for mathematical sound mechanisms to detect multiple false bits. The CRC calculation or cyclic redundancy check was the result of this. Nowadays CRC calculations are used in all types of communications. All packets sent over a network connection are checked with a CRC. Also each data block on your harddisk has a CRC value attached to it. Modern computer world cannot do without these CRC calculation. So let's see why they are so widely used. The answer is simple, they are powerful, detect many types of errors and are extremly fast to calculate especially when dedicated hardware chips are used.
I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on. So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approch is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back.
:clapclapclap: :clapclapclap:
Hear, hear, Paul. Now that *is* officially post of the year... I almost want to frame it for posterity!!
In fact, it's going into 'Our Ethos', accredited to you.
Marco.
To answer the op question No.
CRC calculations
Whenever digital data is stored or interfaced, data corruption might occur. Since the beginning of computer science, people have been thinking of ways to deal with this type of problem. For serial data they came up with the solution to attach aparity bit to each sent byte. This simple detection mechanism works if an odd number of bits in a byte changes, but an even number of false bits in one byte will not be detected by the parity check. To overcome this problem people have searched for mathematical sound mechanisms to detect multiple false bits. The CRC calculation or cyclic redundancy check was the result of this. Nowadays CRC calculations are used in all types of communications. All packets sent over a network connection are checked with a CRC. Also each data block on your harddisk has a CRC value attached to it. Modern computer world cannot do without these CRC calculation. So let's see why they are so widely used. The answer is simple, they are powerful, detect many types of errors and are extremly fast to calculate especially when dedicated hardware chips are used.
But could we not be overlooking other causes not directly related to data packet transfer? Such as noise being transferred as separate entity down the cable? I'm speculating wildly here, obviously.
Paul, what was your official title when you worked for JVC? :)
Marco.
PaulStewart
26-11-2015, 09:25
Paul, what was your official title when you worked for JVC? :)
Marco.
Started as head of customer liaison, the in house HiFi and video expert, then when we brought the PR and press stuff in house, I was called the Technical Liaison Officer. But the thing about JVC, was that it was a company based on innovation, if you had an idea, they would put it out to people in the company and develop it. A lot of development in the products came from the UK and Europe. After I left JVC UK, I did a spell as a consultant to JVC professional on the pro video side.
tubehunter
26-11-2015, 09:29
The only other issue is when using Cat 7 which has an earth shield.
Ask yourself do you want to ground your entire computer network though your hifi, I know I don't.
Started as head of customer liaison, the in house HiFi and video expert, then when we brought the PR and press stuff in house, I was called the Technical Liaison Officer. But the thing about JVC, was that it was a company based on innovation, if you had an idea, they would put it out to people in the company and develop it. A lot of development in the products came from the UK and Europe. After I left JVC UK, I did a spell as a consultant to JVC professional on the pro video side.
Thanks for that. mate. Very interesting. Obviously, JVC were a rather forward-thinking and progressive company. Those values certainly shone through in the design and performance of their 'statement' products! :)
Marco.
walpurgis
26-11-2015, 10:34
:clapclapclap: :clapclapclap:
Hear, hear, Paul. Now that *is* officially post of the year... I almost want to frame it for posterity!!
In fact, it's going into 'Our Ethos', accredited to you.
Marco.
I agree. Paul has stated what needed to be said eloquently.
Thank you mikmas, I was beginning to think that I was the only one who watched The Fast Show
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xxRWBFKcZH524o/giphy.gif
Rothchild
26-11-2015, 12:02
Just to get my tuppence worth in, and perhaps I should mention I did my first degree in Physics and post grad in the murky subjective world of Psycho-acoustics. The history of science is littered with respected theories, that turned out to be wrong, look up Phlogiston theory for instance.
When I was doing research into "Infra bass and perceptions of reality in sound staging", which followed on from something Graham Holiman started. We found that a lot of what we did was indeed measurable, but a lot of what the large group of test subjects percieved was not, both they and us the crew could hear the effect, without going into the full details of something thing that is a large corporations Intellectual property, I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on. So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approch is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back.
Rant over, going to have a cup of tea and listen to some Bach
This is a description of science, not subjectivism. Quite why Marco would wish to claim it as a valdiation of claims made on the internet as truth is unclear at best to me. The phenomena didn't measure at first but was observable and consistent enough to justify further testing and after a period of empirical research a conclusion was drawn based on series of repeatable experiments which validated the 'truth' of the observation and the theory as to why it happened.
Measuring and testing are not necessarily synonymous.
PaulStewart
26-11-2015, 12:41
Marc,
Empirical science, is just collected subjective observations. Before the eighties, the scentific study of psychology, did not accept the role of the concious mind, however after much research and arguement, the role of this side of our minds became important and relevant to the empirical study of the human brain.
To get back to the OPs post, MY OPINION is that its the noise rejection capabilities of some cables, be they CAT 6 or better still shielded CAT7, that creates the difference in SQ. I have obsereved that when running certian cables through a DAC that is equipped to show when error correction is in operation, the happens less with some cables and least with CAT 7 with the shields grounded. This is what I now use to feed my server.
tubehunter
26-11-2015, 12:54
Unusual Dac, not many have an Ethernet port.
Rothchild
26-11-2015, 12:55
Marc,
Empirical science, is just collected subjective observations.
I think the means and methods of collecting those observations have an impact on the quality of the science though, don't they?
Unusual Dac, not many have an Ethernet port.
Probably an oppo 105 or the like..its a dac too
PaulStewart
26-11-2015, 13:02
Unusual Dac, not many have an Ethernet port.
This one dosen't I'm afraid, my observations are from signals that go from the router to the MacMini server and from there to the DAC via a Fisual optical cable.
PaulStewart
26-11-2015, 13:16
I think the means and methods of collecting those observations have an impact on the quality of the science though, don't they?
They can do, many people before. CTR Wilson had seen a Brocken spectre on Ben Nevis, at that point scientific methodology was introduced to the process and the cloud chamber and nuclear sciene were born. Because, and here I simplfy, Wilson and Rutherford took lay observations, applied a scientific methodology and changed the world. I suppose it boils down in many ways, to whether the scientist in question is an applied scentist or a theoretical one.
Quite why Marco would wish to claim it as a valdiation of claims made on the internet as truth is unclear at best to me.
That's not what I was doing, Marc.
I was just vehemently agreeing with Paul's position on the matter, and outlining that's how REAL scientists with genuinely inquisitive (open) minds behave, which is somewhat contrary to that of the pseudo-scientists/'measurists' and consumer saviours, I've met on forums, who claim that their behaviour mirrors the mindset of real scientists, when in reality it does not, as Nick (lurcher) alluded to yesterday:
Well, as you say thats just another set of belief's then, but its not science you are talking about but someone’s misguided view of what science is.
Too many genuine subjective observations in audio, IMO, are ignorantly dismissed as 'imagined', by individuals who fall into the latter category (above), to the detriment of further learning, simply because said observations aren't currently 'scientifically proven'.
As Paul has successfully demonstrated, by taking lay observations, and applying a scientific methodology, new phenomena can be discovered - and that's what should be happening more in hi-fi, when it comes to properly understanding why some people can hear genuine sonic differences between things like mains, digital or Ethernet cables.
Contrary to the desires of binary-thinking reductionists, the subject of audio, and how, as humans, our ears and brains treat music signals, is NOT a 'done deal'.
Marco.
Too many genuine subjective observations in audio, IMO, are ignorantly dismissed as 'imagined', by individuals who fall into the latter category (above)
Though thats not to say that every subjective observation is a sign of a real effect, the various perceptional biases do exist. It does however seem to me that its likely that some of them are, or at least are worthy of further study.
Though thats not to say that every subjective observation is a sign of a real effect, the various perceptional biases do exist. It does however seem to me that its likely that some of them are, or at least are worthy of further study.
Absolutely, on both counts.
Perceptional biases most certainly do exist, of that there is no doubt, and I accept that fact, and that plenty of stuff we hear is imagined; just not automatically whenever some objectivist/'measurist' or reductionist decides to use it to bolster his or her prejudices, or uses it as a 'get out of jail card' to belittle someone of a contrary mindset, when they feel that the validity of their 'belief system/ingrained dogma' is being challenged - or perhaps even dismantled... ;)
Marco.
sq225917
26-11-2015, 18:42
Just to get my tuppence worth in, and perhaps I should mention I did my first degree in Physics and post grad in the murky subjective world of Psycho-acoustics. The history of science is littered with respected theories, that turned out to be wrong, look up Phlogiston theory for instance.
When I was doing research into "Infra bass and perceptions of reality in sound staging", which followed on from something Graham Holiman started. We found that a lot of what we did was indeed measurable, but a lot of what the large group of test subjects percieved was not, both they and us the crew could hear the effect, without going into the full details of something thing that is a large corporations Intellectual property, I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on. So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approch is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back.
Rant over, going to have a cup of tea and listen to some Bach
So what you're basically saying is that you could be both identify and measure the issue. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. if someone claims to hear a difference i'll look to see if they can do it in the absence of external stimuli, if the ability to hear the issue evaporates under test conditions I'll look less hard for the cause. If a bunch of people can hear an issue and there's an obvious consensus on how it manifests then I'd look for the cause.
But bottom line, there's no proof out there of anyone ever being able to hear anything we can't measure. I accept there's plenty of cases of not trying to measure the right thing in the first place.
if someone claims to hear a difference i'll look to see if they can do it in the absence of external stimuli, if the ability to hear the issue evaporates under test conditions I'll look less hard for the cause.
What if the test conditions were flawed, because of being less than ideally suited to analysing the effects being tested for?
That's certainly the case, IMO, with DBX, the process for which was never intended to be applied to audio. I don't consider that 'irrefutable proof' of anything audio related could ever come from that type of testing.
If a bunch of people can hear an issue and there's an obvious consensus on how it manifests then I'd look for the cause.
Excellent. That's PROPER science at work.
But bottom line, there's no proof out there of anyone ever being able to hear anything we can't measure. I accept there's plenty of cases of not trying to measure the right thing in the first place.
Yup, but it's that last bit that's the problem, and I believe is largely responsible for why wrong conclusions are being reached about the first bit... ;)
Marco.
cloth-ears
26-11-2015, 21:39
So was I right or wrong?, I've lost count :)
So was I right or wrong?, I've lost count :)
Yes, I think so, which would you prefer?
walpurgis
26-11-2015, 21:55
So was I right or wrong?, I've lost count :)
About what?
I believe that the butler did it in the drawing room, with a meat cleaver.
Marco.
PaulStewart
26-11-2015, 22:48
I believe that the butler did it in the drawing room, with a meat cleaver.
Marco.
No Candlestick
So was I right or wrong?, I've lost count :)
That's Numberwhang....
cloth-ears
26-11-2015, 23:02
Yessssssssssssssssssssssssss Numberwhang
cloth-ears
26-11-2015, 23:03
This week; I have been mostly annoying people
cloth-ears
26-11-2015, 23:12
No 2's............just ones and zeros :lol:
You'll get a nice 'number 2', all right, left on your cream carpet, if you don't shut it! :eyebrows:
;)
Marco.
I dont have a cream carpet... Will a blue one do?:eyebrows: I know its not your favourite colour:lol:
Ha - I was talking to Cloffo!
Marco.
walpurgis
26-11-2015, 23:40
Ha - I was talking to Cloffo!
Marco.
Bob's not far from me. I'll go and sort it Marco! :D
(but I'll do it scientifically, with properly calibrated measuring equipment. I'll print the full spectrum off on the 'turdograph' ;))
He's not far from me. I'll go and sort it Marco! :D
(but I'll do it scientifically, with properly calibrated measuring equipment. I'll print the full spectrum off on the 'turdograph' ;))
Would it be calibrated against reference turds kept at the National Physical Laboratory, conforming to the Bristol Stool Chart?
:lolsign:
Talking of which, I can feel a 'Snickers' slipping out! :eek:
Marco.
walpurgis
26-11-2015, 23:50
Would it be calibrated against reference turds kept at the National Physical Laboratory, conforming to the Bristol Stool Chart?
No. It will be done according to the second revision of the 'Klingon Standard' :eyebrows:.
No. It will be done according to the second revision of the 'Klingon Standard' :eyebrows:.
Ah yes - with respect to carpet adhesion, the revised 'Klingon Standard' would be more appropriate.
walpurgis
26-11-2015, 23:54
:lolsign:
Talking of which, I can feel a 'Snickers' slipping out! :eek:
Marco.
Could be a 'Marathon' event! :D
http://i65.tinypic.com/mbgyfc.png
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Couric
walpurgis
27-11-2015, 00:10
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Couric
Come on. You're just going through the motions there.
Could be a 'Marathon' event! :D
http://i65.tinypic.com/mbgyfc.png
It will be when this thing hits the pan - feels like it'll take a good fart and a double-flush to shift!! :lol:
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
27-11-2015, 00:23
I'll just mention that I always find it amusing that all the subjects that attract such interest tend to be ones where one needs no technical knowledge to implement them... just plug 'em in... Whereas if I started a thread on something really important like e.g. voltage regulation, which makes vastly more difference than any cable, it would die after a couple of posts as people don't understand it (and would need technical help or to send the gear away to implement it) and hence dismiss it. Anything people can do for themselves with no technical knowledge gets hugely disproportionate interest! Even if it's expensive! I too will get my coat :D
Whereas if I started a thread on something really important like e.g. voltage regulation...
It's not more important than jobbies! :ner:
Marco.
walpurgis
27-11-2015, 00:27
Understandable Jez. You're a 'tech bod', most of us have basic knowledge only (or none).
A good pair of ears helps a lot against the 'provable' stuff though. :)
Arkless Electronics
27-11-2015, 01:28
Understandable Jez. You're a 'tech bod', most of us have basic knowledge only (or none).
A good pair of ears helps a lot against the 'provable' stuff though. :)
Understandable to an extent... It does seem to be a case of "lets ignore all the stuff we don't understand/can't implement without technical help and then magnify the importance of anything that's "plug and play" out of all proportion"...
Hi Jez,
It's not a case of ignoring it. It's a case of not being interested in a lot of it, if you're not technically minded or have any need for carrying out measurements.
Therefore, you discuss the things you enjoy, have experience of, and thus are able to express a valid opinion about: i.e. your subjective audio experiences. Contrary to what some misguided 'objectivists' think, a lack of technical knowledge does not preclude one from contributing an erudite opinion on those matters. All that is required is a pair of ears!
I'm a firm believer in leaving measurements and test equipment to the professionals, and just getting on with enjoying the music, or tinkering within the limits of my abilities... After all, I'm a hi-fi and music enthusiast, not an electronics designer.
If my car needs fixed, I take it to a mechanic, if my house needs rewiring, I consult an electrician, and if my amplifier goes faulty, I speak to a friendly audio engineer, but that doesn't mean I'm not qualified to comment on how things sound, and why I think that's the case. We all have different levels of knowledge, and respective skill sets, something you should know all too well, after recent events ;)
So, let the designers worry about the measurements and technicalities, and leave the rest of us to the listening. Nothing makes me fall asleep quicker than trying to read (what for me) are largely meaningless graphs and reams of technical gobbledygook!
BOOOORRRRRIIINGGGG.... :baa: :drugs:
As they say, you do your thang, baby, and I'll do mine :exactly:
Marco.
cloth-ears
27-11-2015, 11:37
You'll get a nice 'number 2', all right, left on your cream carpet, if you don't shut it! :eyebrows:
;)
Please gentleman. This is supposed to be a serious forum, not just going through the "motions". Don't "pooh pooh" my ideas. What have I "dung" to deserve this. I will be keeping a "log" of any further such remarks
walpurgis
27-11-2015, 11:52
[QUOTE=Marco;706494]I will be keeping a "log" of any further such remarks
Well don't expect to get paid 'time and a turd' for doing so :eyebrows:.
Oi, you've made a right 'arse' of that quote! :eyebrows: It wiznae me wot wrote that!
Marco.
Ali Tait
27-11-2015, 12:36
Ok that's enough shit stirring.
walpurgis
27-11-2015, 12:37
Ok that's enough shit stirring.
Bummer! :D
Stop talking verbal diarrhoea.
Marco.
Life is a lot like toilet paper. You're either on a roll...or you're taking shit from some asshole.
Ah this is so much pun!
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/27/d71f894bd2317378b6b4e251429176b7.jpg
Lol - no chance of that being a 'floater'! :D
Marco.
Clive197
27-11-2015, 14:16
Life is a lot like toilet paper. You're either on a roll...or you're taking shit from some asshole.
!
Now that's funny. :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.